RadioBanter - View Single Post

January 22nd 04, 07:34 PM

From: (Jerry=A0Oxendine)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
... JerryO wrote:
It is sad that much "truth" is only a myth

promoted by crooked CB shops-like coax

length and "broad-banded" BIG coil antennas!

Those big coil antennas are for handling megawatts..something your
conventional cb antennas can not do. The antennas work exactly as they
were designed.

I didn't say SAY they did something they were

not designed to do. What I said was that they

are NOT broad-banded unless the mfr dickers

with the impedance

Yea,,,and I agree with that statement.
But to be fair and balanced,,ALL manufacturers dicker with their
antennas.,

to make it cover a wide range of frequencies.

If an antenna is truly efficient,

The antennas you speak of have everything more to do with power
capacity. They are designed to take a maximum load for shirt bursts of
time.

Again, I said nothing about being able to

handle huge amounts of power. I am sure they
will, but how many

people USE 10,000 watts in the real world?

Granted. But this isn't the real world we speak of,,it's cb and
hammie,,and in those worlds, more hammies than you apparently think, use
full limit loads,,,maybe not a full 10,000 watts, but what kind of jump
in power per se, does a hammie achieve when blowing 1500 watts through a
beam with a super high gain? See what I mean?

then its

bandwidth is actually narrow(er), but

makers "dicker" with the impedance to widen

bandwidth because it has been taught as

gospel in the CB world. It is also because the

sellers know that selling these "broad-

banded" antennas is important so the buyer

can have his cake and eat it, too!

And this broad-bandedness is a very

important part of the sales pitch to the regular

CBer or trucker just trying to get the best

performance from their setup.

The big coils antennas are made more for power capacity than this
"broadband" you speak of as relating to cb antennas.

...which IS what I was talking about. The

accepted "truth" amongst many CB folks is

that those big coil antennas are not only able

to handle gobs of power, but

will cover 25-29 MHZ as well. In their natural

state, they will not.

Depends on your definition of "cover". I have a Wilson that will
transmit with an acceptable SWR from 26 all the way to the ten meter
band.
By "acceptable", I mean under 2.

But mfrs. tinker with it to "make" it cover all

these 'freeband' frequencies while the "Q", or

efficiency, suffers.

Mostly all mobile antennas are compromised in some manner in order to
make them a practical size.

Those BIG coil antennas aren't as efficient as

the makers make them out to be,

I beg to differ. Many that say "maximum power is 10,000 watts" means
just that. I wouldn't try 15 or 20 in one of those specified for 10.

Most people don't try for such power. Most of

us are happy with 2-25 watts, or whatever is

"normal".

I tend to disgree. The "bigger is better" mentality you speak of has
always ruled in the world of hammies and cbers.

but they sell

antennas because bigger is "better", right?

Antennas? Yea,,bigger is better.

If the only thing you are looking for is Mo

Powah!

Not at all. You fail to acknowledge the SWL listener's position, among
others.

Lots of smoke and mirrors, eh?

I find more smoke and mirrors from those who have said "it can't be done
on 27" or "cb dx is only playing hammie radio", etc.. And the list goes
on.

I don't know what you mean by that. Who said

it can't be done on 27?

Several hammies have been schooled here on real word capabilities
regarding cb.

*I* never said that,

Acknowledged.

I

said that there are many myths and untruths

promoted by dishonest sellers.

What's wrong with that?

Not a thing,,IF you play both sides fair and tend to point out the
fallacies and bull**** brought to cb by hammies,,but you don't.

One day I'll tell you the one about the mobile

antenna that had water and/or vinagar in the

lower mast.

I see no difference than the hammie
offering to renew one's call sign,,,,for a fee.

........and those who did so met the wrath of

the enforcement division in the form of

re-tests, de-certication

of VE's, and revocations and reversions. AS it

should be. I fully support Riley H's dilligence in
shutting down

exam mills.

For every cb site you cite as an example, it can be countered with a
boneheaded hammie example. When y'all can live and let live, the world
will be a much better place.

Not sure what you mean.

CB is not hammie radio and those who use it really don't care about
hammie radio transcending its boundaries.

Why are you so touchy? All I did was debunk

the so-called StarGun antenna, and show that

it is NOT a beam at all.

Touchy? I merely offered the opposite view,,,the one shared by most
cbers...as the majority realize power is what has always driven the
communications hobby,,,,,I didn't make it that way and denying the way
it is won;t change it. Repetition of a phrase will not makeit any more
true.

The sales slogan was "Ever notice how much

better your signal is

over water?"

Your signal IS much better over water. I have managed to **** off an
entire contingency of holier-than-thous that thought they had it going
on,,,with nothing more than a kick-azz set up and water, water, and a
whole lot more water!

I never said it wasn't better over water. What

this contraption was a center-loaded whip.

The lower mast

was filled with water or vinegar. The i

mplication that the antenna worked better with
this "water" inside the lower mast. No such

thing.

There is most certainly an argument to be made here. Fill up a push-up
pole with water. I've seen them where they had to be drilled out to
release water. How about saturating the ground where your tower is with
salt?

The liquid was PART of the mast the

same as if it were not solid metal. Water inside
this mast has no effect or additional gain. But

that slogan implied that their antenna would

work the same as if it were beside a lake!

Honest!! Oh, I just told you!
=A0
=A0Let the buyer beware. If if sounds too good to

be true, it probably is.

Jerry

There are ridiculous claims everywhere. Doug Smith's definitive work
with DSPs countered a few angry hammies discussions in here at several
turns, but no one bothered to point out their errors by illustrating
another hammie's proof via years of working with such processors. I
agree,,,,,Let the buyer beware,,their is tons of bull**** flying in this
forum, yet none of it seems to be said with confidence..LOL!

Jerry

It's all relative.